W.P.(C) No.-000118-000118 / 2016. SHAYARA BANO vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. MINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT SECRETARY. Supreme Court, 22-08-2017

Party Name:W.P.(C) No.-000118-000118 / 2016. SHAYARA BANO vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. MINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT SECRETARY. Supreme Court, 22-08-2017
Judgement Date:August 22, 2017
Court:Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Original Civil Jurisdiction
Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of 2016
Shayara Bano … Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others … Respondents
with
Suo Motu Writ (C) No. 2 of 2015
In Re: Muslim Women’s Quest For Equality
versus
Jamiat Ulma-I-Hind
Writ Petition(C) No. 288 of 2016
Aafreen Rehman … Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others … Respondents
Writ Petition(C) No. 327 of 2016
Gulshan Parveen … Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others … Respondents
Writ Petition(C) No. 665 of 2016
Ishrat Jahan … Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others … Respondents
Writ Petition(C) No. 43 of 2017
Atiya Sabri … Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Digitally signed by
SARITA PUROHIT
Date: 2017.08.23
13:12:55 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI.
2
Index
Sl.
No.
Divisions Contents Para-grap
hs
1. Part-1 The petitioner’s marital discord, and the
petitioner’s prayers
1- 10
2. Part-2 The practiced modes of ‘talaq’ amongst
Muslims
11- 16
3. Part-3 The Holy Quran – with reference to ‘talaq’ 17- 21
4. Part-4 Legislation in India, in the field of Muslim
‘personal law’
22- 27
5. Part-5 Abrogation of the practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’ by
legislation, the world over, in Islamic, as well
as, non-Islamic States
28- 29
A. Laws of Arab States (i) – (xiii)
B. Laws of Southeast Asian States (i) – (iii)
C. Laws of Sub-continental States (i) – (ii)
6. Part-6 Judicial pronouncements, on the subject of
‘talaq-e-biddat’
30 - 34
7. Part-7 The petitioner’s and the interveners’
contentions:
35 – 78
8. Part-8 The rebuttal of the petitioners’ contentions 79 - 111
9. Part-9 Consideration of the rival contentions, and our
conclusions
112- 114
I. Does the judgment of the Privy Council in the
Rashid Ahmad case, upholding ‘talaq-e-biddat’,
require a relook?
115-120
II. Has ‘talaq-e-biddat’, which is concededly
sinful, sanction of law?
121-127
III. Is the practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’,
approved/disapproved by “hadiths”?
128-139
IV. Is the practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’, a matter of
faith for Muslims? If yes, whether it is a
constituent of their ‘personal law’?
140-145
V. Did the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)
Application Act, 1937 confer statutory status to
the subjects regulated by the said legislation?
146-157
VI. Does ‘talaq-e-biddat’, violate the parameters
expressed in Article 25 of the Constitution?
158-165
VII. Constitutional morality and ‘talaq-e-biddat’. 166-174
3

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL